The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT), appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County that sustained the statutory appeal of Frances Reynolds from a recall of her operating privilege on grounds of incompetency that was imposed by DOT in compliance with Section 1519 of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1519(c).

We are presented with the sole issue of whether the physician's medical report introduced at the de novo hearing in this matter was sufficient by itself to satisfy DOT's burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Reynolds suffered from a medical condition that rendered her incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle. *fn1 We hold that it does.

The relevant facts are as follows. On October 30, 1995, DOT recalled Reynolds' operating privilege on grounds of incompetency pursuant to Section 1519(c) of the Code. *fn2 Reynolds filed a timely appeal to the Court of Common Pleas on November 21, 1995. A de novo hearing was held on May 9, 1996, at which time DOT presented the following report, prepared by Dr. Anand Kumar, M.D.:

[Patient] has been seen at the Geriatric Clinic for over a year and carries a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease.[ *fn3 ] Her memory and visual-spatial functions are impaired and we have learned that her husband gets her to drive frequently. In my opinion, Mrs. Reynolds does not have the capacity to drive. Her impairment places her in the "high risk category" for driving. Kindly assess her abilities and do the necessary thing in response. (Emphasis added.)

(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 10a.) Reynolds presented no evidence at the hearing.

The trial court concluded that, in order to sustain its burden of proving that Reynolds was incompetent to drive because of a mental condition, DOT was required to present medical testimony in addition to Dr. Kumar's report. *fn4 We disagree. *fn5

Initially, we recognize that pursuant to Section 1518(b) of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1518(b), physicians are required to submit reports to DOT of those individuals who are diagnosed as having any disabilities defined by the Medical Advisory Board. Such medical reports are specifically admissible as evidence in driver incompetency proceedings. See 75 Pa. C.S. § 1519(b). Moreover, nothing in the Code provides that medical testimony is required in order for a finding of incompetency.

However, the trial court relied on our decision in McKay v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 52 Pa. Commw. 24, 415 A.2d 910 (Pa. Commw. 1980), petition for allowance of appeal dismissed, 499 Pa. 223, 452 A.2d 1019 (1982), in concluding that the medical report must be corroborated by testimonial evidence before it is sufficient to support a finding of incompetency. In McKay, we held that testimony of an examining psychiatrist was admissible to explain a medical report which diagnosed the appellant as having a condition of "drug dependence, hallucinogens." The trial court here relied upon the following dicta in McKay to reach its Conclusion to sustain the appeal: "Indeed, in the absence of such [medical] testimony, proof of incompetency because of mental or emotional problems would seldom be possible, if ever." 415 A.2d at 914. After thoroughly reviewing McKay, we conclude that the trial court's reliance upon the quoted obiter dictum is misplaced.

In McKay, DOT recalled the driver's operating privilege after receiving a medical report which diagnosed her as having a condition of "drug dependency, hallucinogens." The driver appealed DOT's action and a de novo hearing was held.

At the hearing, the driver testified that she had taken no hallucinogens in the three months prior to the hearing, and that she was currently receiving psychiatric treatment. DOT presented both the medical report and the testimony of an examining psychiatrist who testified that, if the driver were under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, "she might ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.